14 posts from September 2015

September 24, 2015

Only someone with a heart of stone would not be moved by the plight of the refugees from the Syrian and other wars. We all want to help. My constituency of Newport West has a heroic record of welcoming and assimilating people from other lands for the past 200 years. Again we will do our share. But the Government must play its part in fully funding the additional burdens that the 20,000 will put on greatly strained local services. Because only the most deserving will be selected the demands on the NHS and schools will be exceptional. The PM and Home Secretary should ensure that their constituencies lead by examples.

Below letter sent to the PM and oral replies by the PM and Home Secretary.

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street

London

SW1A 2AA

23 September 2015

Dear David,

Many thanks for your letter to me on the 20th of July.

However, it was disappointing that you have not given any undertaking to arrange a more equitable dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the United Kingdom.

I fully support your decision to allow the most deserving refugees to be invited into this country from Syria and its borders. Unfortunately this does present additional difficulties. Those who are most deserving will be the ones who have serious health and other problems. I understand that the assistance given to local authorities will be limited possibly to a period as brief a year. Those admitted may well need the services of the health service for their entire lives, depending on the severity of their conditions.

I was disappointed in the oral answer that you gave me, when I asked a fortnight ago how many of the 20,000 were expected to be located in your constituency. The answer I received from the Home Secretary was equally disappointing. If the distribution throughout the United Kingdom is as grossly unfair as the present situation, this will impose an intolerable and unfair burden on authorities such as Newport. For as you know, there are 459 asylum seekers in Newport, 600 in Cardiff, and none in your constituency.

Newport has been the enthusiastic, resourceful and successful host to refugees recently. It would be an imposition to take advantage of our generosity in disproportionally allocating an excessive amount of Syrian asylum seekers here.

I look forward to hearing your decision that the additional strains and burdens on the health and education services will be shared equally among all areas of the United Kingdom, including your constituency.

Yours,

Paul Flynn

7th September House of Commons,

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Does the Prime Minister agree that there are great advantages to both local communities and refugees if they are located evenly and proportionately throughout the kingdom? Does he know that in the fine city of Newport, we successfully host 459 asylum seekers and Cardiff has more than 900, but the constituency of the Chancellor has only two, the Home Secretary has only five and the Prime Minister has none? How many of the 20,000 will be located to his constituency?

The Prime Minister: That will be for the discussions chaired by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary. We want to make sure that the whole country can come together to welcome these people.

16th September House of Commons.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Would the Home Secretary’s message of welcome to refugees not be strengthened if she led by example? There are 459 asylum seekers in Newport; 900 in Cardiff; seven in the Home Secretary’s constituency; two in the Chancellor’s; and none in the Prime Minister’s. As there are great advantages to refugees and communities in spreading the refugees evenly throughout the country, will she tell us how many of the 20,000 she expects to welcome to her constituency?

Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman talks about how the dispersal of asylum seekers takes place across the country, but we are of course operating on the basis of the rules that were introduced by a previous Labour Government. We are looking at all the offers from local authorities and, indeed, from others. As I said earlier, we will ensure that need is met, so that when people come here, their need can be met through the accommodation and support they are able to receive

September 21, 2015

The reason that George Osborne is offering the Chinese a £2billion bribe of taxpayers money is that all sensible investors in Hinkley point Nuclear Point power station fled years ago. Centrica walked away after investing £200 million and judging that the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) is a basket case.

EPRs have yet to produce enough electricity to light a bicycle lamp-even though a Finnish EPR promised to generate electricity in 2009. Already six years late and €4 billion over budget, no finishing date is being offered. The sister EPR at Flamaville in France has also suffered similar delays and cost over-runs. Even worse is the potentially catastrophic failure of the lid of the pressure vessel because of its chemical composition.

Taxpayers will be ripped off for 4 decades is the deal goes through for what could be the most expensive electricity in the world. The financial analysts Liberum Central described the price fixed as ‘insane.’ Électricité de France (EDF) agreed a strike price for nuclear-generated electricity in France of £38 per MWh, while the Government agreed to pay nearly three times that price—£92.5 per MWh—to EDF for Hinkley Point electricity guaranteed to index link that price for the next 35 years? The price of fuel cannot be guaranteed for 35 weeks! Recently the U>S> had a great fillip from a plunge in energy prices. Hinkley could impoverish bill payers and industry for the foreseeable future.

Even more threatening than that in addition to the £2 billion bribe the Chancellor is reported to have struck a disastrous deal to give Chiana the right to design and build Bradwell nuclear power stations and possibly all others in future. At a stroke UK technology and skills are dumped and the UK becomes dependent on a foreign power that happens to be communist.

The Government should stop dreaming up ever more exotic subsidies to attract new foreign investors and support sustainable renewable energy plants producing clean and green electricity from ever lasting energy sources such as wave, wind and solar. They are doing the reverse and cutting grants to encourage renewables.

Un-noticed is the vast cliff of water that sweeps up and down the Severn Estuary twice a day washing the walls of Hinkley Point. The wasted power is immense, clean, non-carbon, British, entirely predictable and eternal. Perhaps the cheapest electricity in the world is the tidal power generated for 50 years at La Rance in Brittany.

The Liberal Democrats once had a fine energy policy called ‘Say No to Nuclear’. They said 'a new generation of nuclear power stations will cost taxpayers and consumers tens of billions of pounds. In addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market'. Alas they did a volte-face in exchange for red boxes, limousine and ministerial offices in the Coalitions Agreement. Can they at their conference this week come to their senses, revert to their previous policy and win back their self-respect?

Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, Dr Doug Parr, said: “This announcement is a PR smokescreen to give the impression that this project is moving forward when it’s actually bogged down in a swamp of troubles. Hinkley hasn’t got funding or safety clearance, and everyone outside the nuclear industry and our blinkered government thinks it’s absurd, yet the chancellor is ignoring them all to plough ahead with this overpriced, overrated and overtime project.”

Last week I asked Government what precautions that are taking to safeguard Nuclear Power Stations from attacks from terrorist armed drones. no reply yet. Then there's the mountainous cost of clearing up nuclear waste. Sellafield is £70 billion and counting.

That this House is appalled at the demeaning and deteriorating spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions; notes the widely expressed public revulsion at this ill-mannered, pointless exchange of insults; and calls for its reinvention into a new format in which the Prime Minister can respond to questions in an atmosphere of calm, respect and dignity.

Total number of signatures: 19

Showing 19 out of 19

Anderson, David Labour Party Blaydon 04.06.2015Arkless, Richard Scottish National Party Dumfries and Galloway 08.06.2015Brown, Alan Scottish National Party Kilmarnock and Loudoun 21.07.2015Cadbury, Ruth Labour Party Brentford and Isleworth 08.06.2015Corbyn, Jeremy Labour Party Islington North 02.06.2015Day, Martyn Scottish National Party Linlithgow and East Falkirk 01.06.2015Edwards, Jonathan Plaid Cymru Carmarthen East and Dinefwr 03.06.2015Flynn, Paul Labour Party Newport West 28.05.2015Hopkins, Kelvin Labour Party Luton North 01.06.2015Law, Chris Scottish National Party Dundee West 03.06.2015Maskell, Rachael Labour Party York Central 16.06.2015McDonnell, John Labour Party Hayes and Harlington 04.06.2015McInnes, Liz Labour Party Heywood and Middleton 04.06.2015Newlands, Gavin Scottish National Party Paisley and Renfrewshire North 08.06.2015Pugh, John Liberal Democrats Southport 04.06.2015Qureshi, Yasmin Labour Party Bolton South East 02.07.2015Sheppard, Tommy Scottish National Party Edinburgh East 02.06.2015Smith, Jeff Labour Party Manchester Withington 10.06.2015Williams, Hywel Plaid Cymru Arfon 03.06.2015

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, we had the refreshing change of a Prime Minister’s Question Time that involved an exchange of opinions carried out in a respectful and quiet manner between two politicians. It was a wonderful antidote to the infantile bedlam we suffered for many years, which has done so much damage to the reputation of Members and this House. You have a responsibility in your role for the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions, so may we have an assurance that you will, as you did yesterday, allow generous time to that part of Prime Minister’s Question Time so that we do not go back to the chaos and damaging exchanges of the past?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and happen rather strongly to agree with him. For what it is worth, if colleagues are interested, I know from my pretty extensive visits around the country that it is clear that there is a divide at the Beltway, particularly between those who observe our proceedings and would be more than happy for there to be a fistfight as it would lead to a headline but are not remotely interested in the detail of scrutiny, and those who make up the mass of the public, who are interested in robust but respectful exchange of opinion between elected public servants. I am with the hon. Gentleman and I think the bulk of the public are, too, and those who took part in Prime Minister’s questions in that way yesterday. It is important that Back-Bench participation should be maximised, so we have to try to ensure that there is plenty of time for Back Benchers to put their questions and get their answers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by what he witnessed yesterday and by what he has heard from me today.

September 17, 2015

While I spoke on seven different issues that week, the ONLY one that the press picked up was this brief question which was the lease important of them all. Why no interest in fact that virtually no Syrian Refugees will live in the PM, Chancellor and Home Secretary's constituencies but many will be directed to Newport and Cardiff?

When can we debate whether the practice of commanding one person to kneel before another is demeaning to both, inconsistent with the concept of a modern monarchy and a medieval relic that should have been abandoned centuries ago?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, we had the refreshing change of a Prime Minister’s Question Time that involved an exchange of opinions carried out in a respectful and quiet manner between two politicians. It was a wonderful antidote to the infantile bedlam we suffered for many years, which has done so much damage to the reputation of Members and this House. You have a responsibility in your role for the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions, so may we have an assurance that you will, as you did yesterday, allow generous time to that part of Prime Minister’s Question Time so that we do not go back to the chaos and damaging exchanges of the past?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and happen rather strongly to agree with him. For what it is worth, if colleagues are interested, I know from my pretty extensive visits around the country that it is clear that there is a divide at the Beltway, particularly between those who observe our proceedings and would be more than happy for there to be a fistfight as it would lead to a headline but are not remotely interested in the detail of scrutiny, and those who make up the mass of the public, who are interested in robust but respectful exchange of opinion between elected public servants. I am with the hon. Gentleman and I think the bulk of the public are, too, and those who took part in Prime Minister’s questions in that way yesterday. It is important that Back-Bench participation should be maximised, so we have to try to ensure that there is plenty of time for Back Benchers to put their questions and get their answers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by what he witnessed yesterday and by what he has heard from me today.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Without in any way disagreeing with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) or yourself, in view of some of the controversy over PMQs, and making no comment whatsoever about what happened yesterday, may I say—perhaps you will fully agree—that PMQs is a unique feature of our parliamentary democracy? Many countries would love for the Leader of the Opposition and Back Benchers to be able to question the Government at least once a week. I, like my hon. Friend, am certainly not happy with the Prime Minister’s response over the years, but we should be very careful not to denigrate this feature of parliamentary life. We should be pleased that it exists, and that should be put on the record.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I personally see no contradiction between what he has said and some of the criticisms of the way in which PMQs have been conducted in recent years. He knows that we live in a world in which it is often expected, particularly by our friends in the media, that there is a simple yes/no, like/dislike, agree/disagree, black/white attitude to life. In fact, it is perfectly possible enthusiastically to support the idea of a Prime Minister’s question session for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman gives, namely that there are many countries around the world in which the Prime Minister is not required to come to the House each week to respond to questions—I have met people in those countries, politicians and members of civil society, who say that they wish it had to happen as it does here—while believing that the debate should be conducted robustly but in a courteous fashion. I do not think that there is a contradiction between those two things. When I am asked whether I am in favour of PMQs, I say that I am in favour of it but that I would like it to be better. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What we do not want is PMQs becoming Front-Bench PMQs. Given that only a number of questions are drawn for the Order Paper each week, and given that not all of them are asked, would not a simple solution be to make sure that they are all asked before PMQs can finish? Hopefully that would deter Front Benchers, including the Prime Minister, from going on for too long.

The hon. Gentleman encourages me, and I am grateful to him for his encouragement, but he knows that, in so far as there is any latitude, I tend to use it to try to ensure that we get further down the Order Paper. Therefore, as he will have noticed—he is a very observant fellow—we do not always finish at 12.30 precisely; sometimes we stray a bit beyond that. I think we once went as late as 12.38. The hon. Gentleman is exhorting me to go even longer. He might be exhorting me to get into trouble. I am sure that he would not do that deliberately. I agree with the thrust of what he says. We ought to be trying to get down the Order Paper. The exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are very important, but they are by no means the only part of Prime Minister’s questions. The opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put their questions to the Prime Minister is precious, so I will do everything I can, increasing my efforts if necessary, to ensure that that happens.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir David. It is a special joy to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has a heroic record of working for Indict and CARDRI. She took on a lonely task, and she behaved with genuine heroism by going to inspect the wars for herself. It is a shame that previous leaders of our party have never been as aware of her talent as the present leader may be. Her best days are ahead.

My right hon. Friend mentioned Yemen. We should be greatly concerned that, in a country of 21 million people, 84% of the population are in need of humanitarian aid. It is an extraordinary crisis that has had very little attention. What is going on in Yemen? A group, the Houthis, are regarded as rebels, and the Saudis have gone in, supported by us, and are creating a terrible situation. At least 4,000 people have been killed in the past few months. Last week, on “Newsnight,” we saw a water-bottling plant that was bombed, with the workers turned into carbon. All that was left of them was their burned bodies, and we had a hand in doing that.

The extraordinary thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, is that the Government are behaving in two different ways: they are providing humanitarian aid, which we do very well—the Government should be congratulated on their record of maintaining the 0.7% aid budget—but, on the other hand, they are feeding the war machine that is causing death and creating refugees.

There is a nasty regime in Azerbaijan under Aliyev. I spoke to him a year ago, and he told me that it is untrue that Azerbaijan imprisons journalists, demonstrators and opponents. He promptly went home from that meeting, which took place when, absurdly, his country headed the Council of Europe, a body in charge of human rights, and arrested dozens more journalists, demonstrators and opponents. Yet there is a campaign in this House to get as many Members as possible to join the all-party group on Azerbaijan. Members of that group are welcome to go on the caviar trail, and they will be very well looked after while they are in Azerbaijan.

The arms trade contributes to undermining the work of this House. When the war drums are beating, we are all blackmailed into supporting new wars because there will be jobs at stake in our constituencies. We hear from those workers and are told that, if we are against the war, we are against jobs in our constituency. The powerful arms trade lobby is deeply corrupting. The Government are trying to edge us into a new war, into blundering into the four-sided civil war in Syria, with God knows what consequences. Just two years ago they wanted us to fight Assad, and now they want us to take on ISIL—they are both deadly enemies—but the House no longer trusts Government information. We lost 179 of our brave British soldiers in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We went into Helmand in 2006, having lost just four soldiers in battle up to that point, on the assurance that not a shot would be fired; in fact, millions of shots were fired and we lost 454 soldiers. Again, we were told two years ago to prepare for war with Iran because it was going to attack us with its non-existent long-range missiles carrying non-existent nuclear weapons.

We in this House must look to the arms trade. Yes, there are benefits to be gained from that trade, but we must resist the temptation to go ahead and support oppressive and murderous regimes in the name of profit. A sensible line must be drawn between our great record on humanitarian aid and our record of unnecessarily shoring up wicked regimes that create the problems of deprivation, cause deaths and create a large number of refugees. We must have a consistent, rational policy that makes sense.

I speak as an old lag of the steel industry, having worked in it for 30 years before they pensioned me off into a light job on these green Benches. I applaud the plea that my hon. Friend is making. The steel industry has a wonderful record of serving the country efficiently over many years. Let us all join in the plea, which I am sure all Members will do today, for the Government to take an exceptional measure to deal with what is a temporary problem in the industry, but one that could lead, if neglected, to permanent damage.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a difficult time and there are actions that the Government could take to build resilience. There is a future for the UK steel industry. I am sure that everybody—this is certainly true of those on the Opposition Benches—agrees with that. We hope to hear from the Government that their commitment is the same.

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Migration

Last week I questioned the Prime Minister on the subject. Yesterday I questioned the Home Secretary following her Statement on Migration and received yet another vacuous answer on the dispersal of refugees.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Would the Home Secretary’s message of welcome to refugees not be strengthened if she led by example? There are 459 asylum seekers in Newport; 900 in Cardiff; seven in the Home Secretary’s constituency; two in the Chancellor’s; and none in the Prime Minister’s. As there are great advantages to refugees and communities in spreading the refugees evenly throughout the country, will she tell us how many of the 20,000 she expects to welcome to her constituency?

Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman talks about how the dispersal of asylum seekers takes place across the country, but we are of course operating on the basis of the rules that were introduced by a previous Labour Government. We are looking at all the offers from local authorities and, indeed, from others. As I said earlier, we will ensure that need is met, so that when people come here, their need can be met through the accommodation and support they are able to receive.

Civil Service Jobs

The transfer of Office of National Statistics jobs to Newport has been a great success, described as a model of relocation with costs lowered and efficiency increased. Civil Service jobs in Wales must be protected.

7. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the provision of civil service jobs in Wales. [901177]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns): I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including civil service jobs in Wales. I appreciate that the civil service, as a major employer in Wales, contributes significantly to the Welsh economy.

Paul Flynn: With 30 years of whinging and whining from job gluttons, mostly from London, set against the huge success of the relocation of civil service jobs in Wales, when will we hear a strong clarion call from Welsh Ministers to defend jobs in the broad acres of Wales and away from polluted, overcrowded and congested London?

Alun Cairns: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to reports about the Office for National Statistics. Sir Charlie Bean’s review is a wide-ranging report, independent of Government, into how to address future challenges to the measurement and production of economic statistics. He referred specifically to the support given by the Wales Office. I am sure that my predecessors would like me to highlight that the number of civil servants employed across the UK has fallen by 17% but in Wales by only 13%. That is a credit to my predecessors.

September 13, 2015

These are exciting exhilarating times. The extraordinary becomes commonplace. Miracles are routine. The Labour collapse in Scotland was on a scale unprecedented in centuries of British history. The shifts of loyalties were mountainous. Labour majorities of over 20,000 were transmuted into majorities of more than 10,000 for the SNP.

The Leadership Election stunned by humbling the mighty and exalting the meek. Time to reboot my crystal ball. Both candidates for Leader and Deputy that I nominated in the Labour Leadership Election came last!

Jeremy’s elevation has jump-started the shell-shocked and comatose party into fresh life. The Corbyn victory has left the Tories more demented than ever in their maniacal mind-numbing soundbite that irritates like toothache and may surpass the vacuous imbecility of the 'long-term economic strategy' and 'hard-working families.' Will they soon warn that Corbyn's victory will usher in a plague of boils, world famine and the annihilation of the human race?

The scale of the victory has smothered all the objections and excuses that were being incubated beforehand. A majority in all three sectors kills all suggestions of influence by infiltrators or faulty administration. New Politics has arrived. No longer can any voter say that all parties are the same. Labour with Corbyn in place is distinctive, idealistic, gritty and armed with messages of forceful clarity and freshly minted ideals.

Shadow cabinet members who threatened to resign if Corbyn was elected thought it would discourage votes for him. Now they are trapped, hoist by their own petards and appear mean-spirited

Corbyn campaigned brilliantly with charm and the common touch. The other three candidates disappointed as colourless and lacking novelty. Only in the last days did they find their mojos

Corbyn must be given the support his majority deserves. If it does not work out, Labour will not go into another election with a leader who is less popular than the party as we did in 2015, 2010 and 1983. The party fell in love with a principled, authentic partisan of Classic Labour. They judged him to be free of the trappings of the now degraded politics of the past 20 years. The country might also be convinced with new popularity for unconvential politicians who break all the rules.

The way ahead for the Parliamentary Labour Party LP is ONE Leader (No quibbling or back biting), ONE Party (No splits), ONE Enemy, (This awful Government).

September 12, 2015

Prime Minister’s Questions must be reconfigured if Parliament’s reputation is to be restored, argues Paul Flynn

Can a beloved national institution be reformed? Should a weekly national embarrassment continue? The arguments rage.

The 'mother of parliaments' is a degraded harlot doomed to endure future scandals. Attempts at reform have been superficial. A great fresh injection of the new blood of 180+ MPs should invigorate and inspire a determination to end the weekly self-humiliation.

The Prime Minister’s Questions of 4 March were described as the “worst ever”. The evidence is convincing. Very few of David Cameron’s answers were connected in any way to the questions posed by Ed Miliband.

The then Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about his immigration figures promise. The Prime Minister’s answers were carefully manicured soundbites on pensions, Sure Start visitors, health spending, TV licences, eye tests, winter fuel allowances, cancer, married couples’ tax allowances, basic state pensions, wasteful spending, carbon emissions, apprentices and election leaflets. For Olympic irrelevance, the PM wins. He set a new nadir of pointlessness.

In all other parliamentary oral questions, relevance rules. I asked at Welsh Questions about the Severn tidal lagoons earlier that day. If the Welsh minister’s answer had told me the price of cabbage, he would have been declared out of order. Why not the PM?

There are other degradations. Robust badinage is acceptable. Crude insults are not. Members, unable to answer back, have been described as “a muttering idiot”, “a dinosaur”, “a waste of space”, and the tediously repeated “weak”. This is not grown-up politics.

The hypnotically repeated mantras are mind-numbing and self-defeating. Moreover, they have been rumbled. Michael Cockerell’s Inside the Commons BBC series juxtaposed several lobotomised Tory MPs who had been drilled by the whips to parrot “long-term economic plan” in their questions. Mentioning “hard-working families” brings joy to the whips, but fosters neuralgic irritation in others.

Defenders of the status quo rejoice in the worldwide popularity of the spectacle. It’s diverting, amusing showbusiness – but ultimately demeaning. The public’s derision mounts. They fairly ask if these same bellowing buffoons can be trusted to take decisions on sending troops to war or cutting benefits.

There have been previous attempts at reform. John Major praised the collaboration he had from Neil Kinnock in reshaping the then twice weekly row into a civilised exchange of views. It was short-lived. I tried to help by sending 10 Downing Street a copy of the number one question I was to ask in the hope of a constructive reply. The answer Major gave me was described in a Times editorial as “a typical civil service briefing with a party political sting in the tail”. Scalded, I never again wasted a chance to surprise a prime minister.

Michael Cockerell’s programmes were beneficial to our reputation in revealing – in an amusing, attractive format – the best of the House. Intelligent, hard-working MPs were shown toiling for the benefit of their constituents. The public judge us by their disgust at the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal and the laughable bedlam of PMQs. PMQs is probably unreformable in its present state because of the advantages of direct confrontation to prime ministers. If we are to regain public trust, a new format is needed.

It should preserve the robust gladiatorial challenge to power while maintaining a respectful decorum. It could retain the Opposition’s advantage of choosing the subject while allowing the Prime Minister to have the last word. Debating value would be enriched if questioners were allowed supplementaries.

The adversarial, mass bear pit of the Commons could be supplanted by the less confrontational Westminster Hall. Questions could be put by opposition leaders plus 30 randomly selected MPs, who would be allowed supplementaries. Passion, heat and posturing could be reduced by cool, intelligent, civilised exchanges.

A surprising number of MPs no longer attend PMQs. The public’s disdain is visceral and growing. Parliament is better than PMQs, and we should prove it.

September 09, 2015

Today I put in a request to speak on the Queen anniversary. Unfortunately time ran out and I was not called. Main delay was caused by Tim Farron who made the most vacuous speech. I would have said.

A brief word of thanks, congratulations and respect from a convinced republican.

In spite today’s remarkable milestone of service, republicans still believe that the hereditary system in absurd and many MPs deplore the lack of choice in the wording of the oath we must take.

Most influential symbolic act of her reign was standing in Croke Park dressed in Green and bowing her head as an act of penitence.

One lesson by example she has given has not been heeded by this House. We have progressed with diversity of own membership so that we look more like the population of the country. We have more women-but not enough. We have more ethnic minorities-but not enough. But we are disgracefully short of octogenarians. As someone who has lived as an adult through the full 63 years of her reign, I offer a personal word of thanks to an elderly queen from this elderly politician. For few nano seconds I considered the possibility of not standing in the election this year at thetender age of 80. How wimpish that would have been. The Queen continues working at the age of 89 without a thought of retirement.

For most of my 28 years here I have been a backbencher by choice. That’s my choice and the choice of the last four of my party leaders. Times are changing and remaining as MP may bring unexpected rewards. The future may belong to the mature politician. Thanks to the Queen for inspiring by example.

Written parliamentary questions are something I take extremely seriously, not least from the time when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches and asking Ministers questions. They should be answered on time and be as accurate and as informative as possible.

It took three questions to get answers that would have been adequately given in one word: “None.” The first question was, “How many prisons in Britain are free of illegal drug use?” The answer was that 81 were free for one month. The second question was, “How many were free for a year?” The answer was that one was free for a year—Blantyre House had not reported any drug use for a full year. The third question revealed that, during that period, Blantyre House had no prisoners, so the answer to drug use in prisons is not to get rid of the drugs, but to get rid of the prisoners. What was the Minister on when he gave that answer?

Yesterday David Cameron announced that the UK would take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next 5 years. A pathetic response to the humanitarian crisis. Much more effort is needed.

There were 103 MPs who questioned the PM over a period of about two hours. The point I made was unique. If all local authorities could take the same number of asylum seekers that Newport does the UK could welcome over a quarter million.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Does the Prime Minister agree that there are great advantages to both local communities and refugees if they are located evenly and proportionately throughout the kingdom? Does he know that in the fine city of Newport, we successfully host 459 asylum seekers and Cardiff has more than 900, but the constituency of the Chancellor has only two, the Home Secretary has only five and the Prime Minister has none? How many of the 20,000 will be located to his constituency?

The Prime Minister: That will be for the discussions chaired by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary. We want to make sure that the whole country can come together to welcome these people.